According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Perez repeatedly shook his head in disagreement with the facts presented by the prosecutor as she outlined the Commonwealth's case. Although the District Attorney's Office requested that Perez be held on $2 million dollars and cited him as a flight risk; Judge Thomas Brennan stated that he did not believe that there were enough details to hold him on bail and he was released on personal recognizance.

In order to be convicted of larceny over $250.00 the Commonwealth must prove that a defendant stole the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the use of the item. Larceny over $250.00 is a felony in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts a felony is any offense in which a defendant faces a possible sentece of state prison. A misdemeanor is a crime in which the defendant only faces the possibility of a house of correction or jail sentence.

If you have been charged with any type of crime in Massachusetts it is imperative that you have an experienced Lawrence Massachusetts lawyer on your side. An experienced lawyer knows that filing appropriate motions and pre-trial investigation is standard operating procedure to secure a successful result.

In Massachusetts, defendants often plead guilty in order to receive, what they believe will be a more favorable disposition than they would have received if they went to trial and were found guilty. An experienced Boston criminal lawyer can evaluate a case and determine whether a case is triable or whether accepting a plea offer is the best course. Obviously, the decision of whether to plead guilty is up to the defendant. In the event that a defendant has "buyer's remorse" and feels that his or plea was not appropriate there are ways to withdraw a guilty plea. In Massachusetts, a defendant can file a motion for a new trial/motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure 30. Depending on the facts of the case the grounds include arguing that the defendant's plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or understandingly entered and must be vacated.

In this case it appears that the suspect spoke with the police officers and provided information that amounts to a confession. In Massachusetts, police officers must inform a suspect that he or she has a right to remain silent, that what he or she says can be used against him or her and that he or she has a right to a lawyer before speaking to the police. These rights are traditionally referred to as "Miranda Rights." The police must inform a citizen of these rights prior to speaking with him or her if the individual is in custody and is subjected to police interrogation or questioning. In the event that it appears that a person's Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination have been violated by the failure of the police to provide these rights, then an experienced lawyer will file a motion to suppress statements. If successful, the government cannot use the defendant's statement during the trial.

In the event that someone is charged with this crime they could face charges of breaking and entering a motor vehicle with intent to commit a felony and larceny over $250.00. Both of these offenses are felonies in Massachusetts which means that a defendant faces a potential sentence of a state prison sentence. Although this is a possibility, if a defendant is prosecuted in the district court the maximum potential penalty will be two and one half years in the house of correction.

In view of the fact that the perpetrator was not arrested at the scene and it appears that the victim did not get a good look at him or her, a viable defense [in the event that someone is charged with this crime] would be that the defendant has been misidentified. In Massachusetts an experienced criminal lawyer often cross examines any witness that makes an identification on the opportunity [or lack of opportunity] he or she had to see the culprit, the lighting or lack of lighting, the length of time that the witness was able to observe the incident and whether a witness has a bias against the defendant.

In Massachusetts, a probationer has only a conditional liberty interest. See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61, 64 (2006). The probationer must comply with the conditions of probation. A breach of a condition of probation constitutes a violation, and if the probation officer receives information tending to show that the probationer has breached, the officer may “surrender” the probationer to the court. Id., at 64-65. A probation revocation hearing is not part of criminal prosecution and, thus, a probationer need not be provided with the full panoply of constitutional protections available at criminal trial. See Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. at 67, see also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973). “The revocation of probation does, however, result in a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus, the Commonwealth must provide probationers with certain protections at surrender hearings. Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 112 (1990); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. at, 783; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1972). “The hearsay on which the judge relies must be reliable.” Commonwealth v. Nunez, 446 Mass. 54, 58 (2006). The Supreme Judicial Court has written that unlike the confrontation clause, due process demands that evidence be reliable in substance, not that its reliability be evaluated in a particular manner. See Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. at 747 n.9. While the court did not define what it meant by the term “reliable in substance” the high court has set the standards to verify reliability. Evidence that would be admissible under standard evidentiary rules is presumptively reliable for due process purposes. See Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. at 747, see also Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. at 118; Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980), overturned 541 U.S. 36. Hearsay evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence or statute is inadmissible. See Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. at 743-44.

Thus, if you have received notification that you are facing a surrender hearing you must have an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side. Knowing the applicable standards and ensuring that the probation department is held to meet their burden is imperative. Most defendants do not go to jail because of the initial charges in district court. They find their way to the house of correction because the probation department maintains that he or she did not fulfill his or her terms of probation. In most cases, there is a reasonable argument that the defendant did not violate the terms of probation and/or that the probation officer has improperly issued a violation notice.

In defending against a restraining order it is important to point out that the complainant's fears are not reasonable and/or that there is not REASONABLE apprehension of IMMINENT PHYSICAL HARM. For example, if a plaintiff is alleging that the defendant caused him or her to fear for his or her safety it is important to establish when the alleged incident occurred. If the plaintiff is alleging the defendant's conduct occurred weeks or months ago, the judge may decide that the actions were not recent enough to establish an imminent fear.

In order to apply for a restraining order in Massachusetts the defendant and the plaintiff must be married or were married to each other; must be or reside in the same household; are or were related by blood or marriage; have a child together or are or were in a "substantive dating or engagement relationship." Thus, not only are couples often at the center of restraining order hearings but a disgruntled roommate may apply for a restraining order in an attempt to oust a roommate. In these situations, an experienced Massachusetts restraining order attorney can establish that the plaintiff is not in fear of the defendant but merely wants him or her removed from the apartment.

In the event that a restraining order issues, it usually states that a defendant cannot have any direct or indirect contact with the plaintiff. In the age of electronics, this includes no text messaging, no phone calls and no e-mails. Obviously, a defendant must refrain from leaving notes, sending messages or flowers to a plaintiff even if the items are not personally delivered by him or her. Any contact, direct or indirect, is considered a violation. Thus, even a defendant's attempt to have a message delivered to a plaintiff from another individual is considered indirect contact.

In Massachusetts “assault and battery” is the intentional and unjustified use of force upon t another, however slight, or the intentional doing of a wanton or grossly negligent act causing personal injury to another. An “assault” is an attempt or offer to do bodily harm to another by force or violence, or simply an attempt to commit a battery. Depending on the facts of the case, self-defense or defense of another are often a viable defenses to a charge of assault and battery. Once a claim of self-defense or defense of another is viably presented, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to disprove such affirmative defense.

In Massachusetts, the charge of unarmed robbery must be litigated in the Superior Court because it is a felony. A felony is any charge in which a potential penalty is a sentence to state prison. In the event that the District Attorney's Office decided to keep the case in district court the defendant may be charged with a misdemeanor crime such as breaking and entering in the the nighttime. However, the District Attorney's office has the final say on what charges a defendant will face.

Based on the facts in this case it appears that attacking the identification of the defendant may be a viable area for the defense to pursue. Any time that a suspect is not apprehended at the scene of an incident attacking the identification procedure is always a fertile area for the defense. In these types of cases, filing appropriate pre-trial motions for disclosure of identification procedures are critical.

The Essex County District Attorney's Office moved to have Holden held without bail because he violated a term of pre-trial probation on his previous arrest by driving. A Salem District Court Judge denied this request but imposed $5,000.00 cash bail. Holden will be held in the Middleton Jail until he posts bail. He is due in court later this month for a pre-trial conference.

In Massachusetts, in order for the Commonwealth to prove that a defendant was drunk driving they must show that the person was driving a motor vehicle, on a public way and was under the influence. A commonly litigated issue is whether the defendant was under the influence. In order to prove this the District Attorney's Office often relies on the observations of the police officers, the field sobriety tests, a breathalyzer (if any) and any statements of the defendant.
In order to counter the testimony of the officers, a good strategy is to emphasize all of the defendant's behavior that is consistent with sobriety. For example, illustrating that the defendant had not problem producing his or her license, no problem getting out of the car and could follow directions are fertile areas of cross examination.

The witness testified that after he left his house to buy cigarettes at the store, Ehlert and a co-defendant dragged him into a Marblehead cemetery and beat him. Defense counsel highlighted inconsistencies between the teenager's initial statement to the police and his "official" version given nine days after the incident. Despite pressing by counsel, the witness maintained that the relationship between Ehlert and himself was limited to interaction at the town's skateboard park with mutual friends. Ehlert and eighteen year old Michael "Tampa" Leoni are facing charges that include robbery, assault and battery, and witness intimidation. Ehlert's twenty-two year old brother is facing a charge of witness intimidation. It is alleged that the made phone calls to the witness following Michael Ehlert's arrest.

Based on the facts in this case it appears that a thorough pre-trial investigation must be conducted to determine the motive for the complaining witness to change his story. Massachusetts General Laws 268 § 13B states that the crime of witness intimidation requires proof that (1) an individual was a witness in a stage of a criminal proceeding, and that the defendant (2) willfully endeavored or tried to influence the witness, (3) did so by means of intimidation, force, or threats of force, or the offering of inducements, and (4) did so with the specific intent of influencing the witness. Based on Massachusetts case law, it is not necessary that charges be lodged at the time of any alleged intimidation. "Any stage of a criminal proceeding" may encompass actions committed by a defendant before the police was called or the alleged crime was reported. For example, the authorities often charge a defendant with "intimidation of a witness" when a complainant alleges that the defendant took his or her phone in an effort to prevent the reporting of a crime.

Many defendants believe that they are home free when they walk out of the courthouse on probation. However, a large number of individuals find themselves in prison due to the fact that they did not live up to the terms of their probation. If you have been served with a notice from your probation officer that you have violated the terms of your probation it is important that you have an experienced defense lawyer on your side. At a preliminary hearing the probation officer must present evidence indicating that you have in fact violated your probation. A skillful attorney will argue that the probation department failed to meet the initial threshold. During a final surrender hearing it is critical that a defendant has a prepared, persuasive and organized attorney on his or her side to prevent a defendant from being surrendered and possibly imprisoned.